SAMA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram.

(2.) Mr. S. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was arrested by the Mamit Police personnel on 13.7.2014 in connection with the alleged seizure of about 60 litres of local made liquor. Subsequently, petitioner was booked under Section 8 (1) of the Mizoram Liquor Total Prohibition Act, 1995. On 13.7.2014, the petitioner was produced before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mamit and he was convicted on the same day on the allegation of the plea of guilt. The petitioner thereafter being aggrieved had filed Crl. Revision No. 40/2014 before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge- I, Aizawl which was also dismissed by the order dated 6.8.2014.

(3.) Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while recording the plea of guilt, the petitioner was never informed of his legal rights of engaging a lawyer nor provided with an Amicus Curiae. The petitioner being an illiterate person, the learned Trial Court should have informed the petitioner of his right as well the consequence of pleading guilty. This has not been done and the same amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.